View Full Version : Apple: Next iPhone update could break unlocked phones.
Ellen
09-25-2007, 08:12 AM
Attention all unlocked iPhone users: Apple issued a statement Monday afternoon warning users of unlocked iPhones that the next software update it ships will probable break their phones.
Link: Apple: Next iPhone update could break unlocked phones | One More Thing - CNET News.com (http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9783713-37.html)
I won't be updating until it's been confirmed that their are unlocks that work with the new software update.
soccerjohn
09-25-2007, 10:36 AM
Just my $.02. Apple is being very retarded with this unlock thing. Other company's don't do this when they find out people are unlocking their phones and using them on other networks. If anything, Apple should be happy because more people with buy the phone and unlock it for use. End of rant.
darkjedi
09-25-2007, 10:39 AM
Just my $.02. Apple is being very retarded with this unlock thing. Other company's don't do this when they find out people are unlocking their phones and using them on other networks. If anything, Apple should be happy because more people with buy the phone and unlock it for use. End of rant.
Other companies also don't get the kind of kickback Apple does for an individual plan over a 24 month period. It is in every way shape and form, lost revenue for Apple. Yes, true they make money from the phone sale itself but the real money comes in the revenue sharing off the rate plan over the time of the contract.
Personally, I'll stick with whatever apple endows me with update wise and enjoy my lovely little toy hack free.
Just my $.02. Apple is being very retarded with this unlock thing. Other company's don't do this when they find out people are unlocking their phones and using them on other networks. If anything, Apple should be happy because more people with buy the phone and unlock it for use. End of rant.If you read the article, Apple is claiming that some of the software hacks modify/break expected functionality. Furthermore, they stated that the coming update was not designed to proactively go after the unlock... just in testing they found some issue with some of the unlocking solutions. The very fact that they're testing against unapproved hacks, impressed me. How many other companies do this?
And let's get real, Nokia and the others have invested 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars trying to prevent unlocks from occurring.... mainly to protect the established business model.
Also, keep in mind that Apple does have a contract with at&t... And to that point, I find it no wonder they aren't working with Erica Sadun (she ROCKS!) or others in this situation. I mean, darkjedi is going to law school for a reason... and it probably ain't cuz he wants to donate his time to charity. :D
It will be very interesting to see how Apple plays this... from my perspective, they are walking a tightrope, with their exclusive contracts on one hand and their frothing fanatics on the other. I know I have my popcorn ready.
Now if you want to have a conversation about why they just didn't sell unlocked iPhones to begin with... I'm right here. :)
kinjutsu11
09-25-2007, 11:26 AM
How to relock your iPhone before the firmware update - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/24/how-to-relock-your-iphone-before-the-firmware-update/) Link to relock your iPhone in case you want to do the new firmware update. I suggest waiting to see what happens first before actually doing the update.
chokaay
09-25-2007, 11:27 PM
Whoops... looks like I was too late... linked to a similar BBC article here (http://www.t-mobilesignal.com/forum/f11/bbc-news-apple-warning-unlocked-iphones-1562.html). Sorry Ellen! :(
chokaay
09-25-2007, 11:36 PM
More information about Apple's iPhone Update here: ZDNET BLOG: Is Apple planning to iBrick unlocked iPhones? (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=813)
Galvatron
09-27-2007, 03:09 PM
The Boy Genius Report (http://www.boygeniusreport.com)More information about Apple's iPhone Update here: ZDNET BLOG: Is Apple planning to iBrick unlocked iPhones? (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=813)
it's offical the update DOSE relock your phonedisable an WIPES OUT 3rd party hardware.
in in the comment sectionsom people phones are bricked
So? Don't Upgrade.
As previous versions are already unlocked, even if newer versions were never cracked (highly unlikely), 3rd parties still have a development platform. From a resource perspective, Apple is an underdog: there are substantially more developers external than internal... and that doesn't even take into account motivation.
And keep in mind that, historically, iTunes has not been the only content management software used with the iPod. And if you find yourself motivated to unlock your iPhone, I think it is a safe bet that you can figure out how to ditch their DRM.
I think Apple would be most concerned about two different tracks developing: their own, and 'their' community.
*********************************
Here's what's in the update:
= Information =
iPhone software version 1.1.1 was release september 27th.
= Features =
It's most notable features are outlined here:
* iTunes Wi-Fi music store
* Louder speakerphone and receiver volume
* Home button double-click shortcut to phone favorites or music controls
* Space bar double-tap shortcut to intelligently insert period and space
* Mail attachments are viewable in portrait and landscape
* Stocks and cities in Stocks and Weather can be re-ordered
* Apple Bluetooth Headset battery status in the Status Bar
* Support for TV Out
* Preference to turn off EDGE/GPRS when roaming internationally
* New passcode lock time intervals
* Adjustable alert volume
It is also known that it includes a new modem firmware.
There's no info whether it bricks unlocked iPhone's or not.
= Undocumented Features =
according to [Undocumented new features in iPhone software/firmware 1.1.1 – iPhone Atlas (http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2007/09/27/undocumented-new-features-in-iphone-softwarefirmware-111/) iPhone Atlas] there are some undocumented features detailed here:
* There is now the ability to change your voicemail password directly from the iPhone. Tap “Settings,” then “Phone,” then “Change Voicemail Password.”
* You can now change the sound that is played when a new text message is received. Tap “Settings,” then “Sounds,” then “New Text Message.”
* There is now a “Debug console” for Safari, which shows HTML errors when rendering Web pages. Tap “Settings,” then “Safari,” then “Developer”
* There are new options for Video playback. You can start playing videos where they left off or from the beginning, and you can use closed captioning. Tap “Settings,” then “iPod.”
Galvatron
09-27-2007, 04:17 PM
don't upgrade don't buy apple
I'll be sure to write that one down... :p
All love! :D
darkjedi
09-27-2007, 05:24 PM
I'll be sure to write that one down... :p
All love! :D
Write this down Taj...I love my iphone and the new update is great, the louder volume is excellent the wifi store is amazingly quick and easy.
Galvatron
09-27-2007, 05:33 PM
Ah but see Ellen he's on att he dosn't care hence dosn't know of the side effects.
darkjedi
09-27-2007, 05:47 PM
Ah but see Ellen he's on att he dosn't care hence dosn't know of the side effects.
I'm a smart enough consumer and certainly significantly more adept at technology than those who purchased phones unlocked with the notion that a phone of this magnitude might have ramifications. I understand the business world with a much clearer understanding than those who post useless rants on lets say macrumors.com whining about Apple and their doings. The bloggers are just as bad, the poor poor consumer who took a risk and watched their "purchase" go down in smoke. I don't feel pity for those individuals, you purchased that item at your own risk. I understand with absolutism that this agreement between Apple and ATT would be honored by any means necessary and if that means a software update to ensure profit than so be it. Thats the way the world works my friend.
Galvatron
09-28-2007, 12:14 AM
I'm a smart enough consumer and certainly significantly more adept at technology than those who purchased phones unlocked with the notion that a phone of this magnitude might have ramifications. I understand the business world with a much clearer understanding than those who post useless rants on lets say macrumors.com whining about Apple and their doings. The bloggers are just as bad, the poor poor consumer who took a risk and watched their "purchase" go down in smoke. I don't feel pity for those individuals, you purchased that item at your own risk. I understand with absolutism that this agreement between Apple and ATT would be honored by any means necessary and if that means a software update to ensure profit than so be it. Thats the way the world works my friend.
if you understand why support a company that breaks the law on unlocking phones and violates att policy on buying handsets outright at invoice an are more than entitled to the unlock code? i understand the business world cause i live in it.
if you understand why support a company that breaks the law on unlocking phones and violates att policy on buying handsets outright at invoice an are more than entitled to the unlock code? i understand the business world cause i live in it.Can you elaborate? I'm having a challenge understanding where you are coming from. I'm sorry.... I'm not that smart. :o
I'm not looking for links or clips from other websites... I'm just trying to understand your thought process so we can have a conversation.
Galvatron
09-28-2007, 02:41 AM
Can you elaborate? I'm having a challenge understanding where you are coming from. I'm sorry.... I'm not that smart. :o
I'm not looking for links or clips from other websites... I'm just trying to understand your thought process so we can have a conversation.
ok first off attls unlock policy is after your contrat is up or if you buy the phone @ invoce(full retail) you are entiteld to request the unlock code.
and the circumventin clauses in the DCMA ill read on a littl more but the circumvnetion clases but basicly they can't prduce softare that will damage your devece. illl lok it up for ya.
"Apple's recent decision to void warranties for folks that unlocked their iPhones may wind them up in legal hot water. The site Phone News points out that Apple appears to have broken a key warranty law relevant to SIM unlocks. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a law decades old, would seem to prevent Apple from voiding warranties in the way it is threatening to do with the iPhone, or so the site argues. 'The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act states that Apple cannot void a warranty for a product with third-party enhancements or modifications to their product. The only exception to this rule is if Apple can determine that the modification or enhancement is responsible [for] damaging the product in question ... The legal [questions are]: Is the SIM Unlock process that has become mainstream doing damage to iPhone? And, also, is Apple designing future software updates to do damage to iPhone when said SIM Unlock code is present?'"
a snipit of the wareny law they violated
The Act provides that any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty must disclose, fully and conspicuously, in simple and readily understood language, the terms and conditions of the warranty to the extent required by rules of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has enacted regulations governing the disclosure of written consumer product warranty terms and conditions on consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $15. The Rules can be found at 16 C.F.R. Part 700.
Under the terms of the Act, ambiguous statements in a warranty are construed against the drafter of the warranty.
Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.
Full Warranty Requirements Under a full warranty, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with the written warranty, the warrantor:
must, as a minimum, remedy the consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge;
may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product;
may not exclude or limit consequential damages for a breach of any written or implied warranty on the product, unless the exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and
if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
In addition, the warrantor may not impose any duty, other than notification, upon any consumer, as a condition of securing the repair of any consumer product that malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty. However, the warrantor may require consumers to return a defective item to its place of purchase for repair
kinjutsu11
09-28-2007, 08:30 AM
Apple worded their warranty very carefully and have not disobeyed with any warranty laws at all. Once the firmware has been changed, Apple is no longer obligated to support the device according to those laws. Once "it has been changed to be used outside [Apple's] original intended use", it doesn't matter. Regarding the unlocks, it is legal to unlock it yourself for your own personal use, to latch onto another wireless network, but it no way is Apple forced to continue to support your device.
In their warranty, they state "This warranty does not apply: (a) to damage caused by use with non- Apple products; (b) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (c) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple."
Regarding the DCMA laws, unlocking is intended for personal use only, and only applies to copyright infringement, not warranty claims.
All unlocked iPhone users really can do is wait til the iPhoneDev Team releases a new hack, or band together, unite, for one helluva class-action law suit.
Geez, I'm glad I sold mine. I don't even want to mess with trying to get another software unlock.
darkjedi
09-28-2007, 09:50 AM
if you understand why support a company that breaks the law on unlocking phones and violates att policy on buying handsets outright at invoice an are more than entitled to the unlock code? i understand the business world cause i live in it.
There has been a clear and concise argument put forth from lawyers on this issue and apple being apple you think they didn't consult their considerably high priced and large legal team about this matter? What world does one live in to think that Apple wouldn't cover their bases?
I just don't understand where this hostility comes from towards apple.
They didn't violate the act you mention and if they did, nor did they violate the Magnuson-Moss act. I really don't understand why people seem to think that Apple is a big bad monster here for protecting their interests. Considering that EVERY one of us a metaphorical comparison would also move to protect our interests should we come up with some business plan that needed protection. I really just don't understand that mindset of those who are upset at apple, I think they are acting on impulse and not thinking through the reality of the situation, that or they just don't understand reality.
Thank you for your response, Galvatron.
Before we continue, can you give me your thoughts on Microsoft, Sony, Viacom, Linux and the EFF? Once again, I'm just looking for ways to relate.
The warranty question aside, if it can successfully be proved that Apple intentionally designed the update software to damage unlocked iPhones, they will likely be found to have committed a constitutionally-prohibited "taking" of property without just compensation, exposing them to considerable liability.
The warranty question aside, if it can successfully be proved that Apple intentionally designed the update software to damage unlocked iPhones, they will likely be found to have committed an constitutionally-prohibited "taking" of property without just compensation, exposing them to considerable liability.Possibly... but who wants to go there? The more I look at this, the more I cheer on Apple. Not because I'm into locking users into a platform... but because they have no qualms with going head-to-head with their partners. Their objective is pretty clear (i.e., sell hardware), and I applaud any decision to challenge those that are so disconnected from their customer base.
This argument appears to go well beyond Apple. Even if Apple was to lose... who is to say they won't benefit?
Anyone for a mixtape? I made one just for you. :)
kinjutsu11
09-28-2007, 01:51 PM
Possibly... but who wants to go there? The more I look at this, the more I cheer on Apple. Not because I'm into locking users into a platform... but because they have no qualms with going head-to-head with their partners. Their objective is pretty clear (i.e., sell hardware), and I applaud any decision to challenge those that are so disconnected from their customer base.
This argument appears to go well beyond Apple. Even if Apple was to lose... who is to say they won't benefit?
Anyone for a mixtape? I made one just for you. :)
I think what Apple just did is actually the opposite of what you just said. With the latest update, they aren't going against their partners, but actually with them. Think about it, all those people who unlocked iPhones and took them abroad, and did the latest update, will now be forced to purchase the iPhone and get the carrier Apple has the agreement with in their respective countries. Yes they make money on hardware alone, but when they are making money off of a yearly contract, that ends up being more profitable. For Apple anyway.
I am, and have always been, an Apple fanboy. I, however, do not like what they did if their update was made to intentionally make unlocked iPhones unusable (at the moment anyways). If it was unintentional, which i think it was, then whatever, because the hacking community always is ready for the next project, especially with something as big as the iPhone. The sad part is, the ones with unlocked iPhones are the hardcore Apple fan-base, since they love Apple, but despise signing up with ATT, and are willing to modify their pieces of hardware (whether they are voiding their warranty out, knowingly or not). Either way, Apple has made their move, it's the hacking communities move next, and we'll see where that road takes. If you want an unlocked iPhone (and a plethora of 3rd party apps), pick up an iPhone now, while the 1.0.2's are still available. And don't update until Jailbreak and AnySIM are updated for 1.1.1.
Possibly... but who wants to go there? The more I look at this, the more I cheer on Apple. Not because I'm into locking users into a platform... but because they have no qualms with going head-to-head with their partners. Their objective is pretty clear (i.e., sell hardware), and I applaud any decision to challenge those that are so disconnected from their customer base.
1.) Who wants to go there? I feel fairly secure in saying that ANYONE with a BRICKED phone would most definitely want to "go there," and apparently that's quite a few people. In addition, anyone who wants to defend consumer rights protected by federal legislation and the U.S. Constitution would certainly want to "go there."
I think that a better question is who DOESN'T want to "go there?" The answer: Corporate apologists and Apple Corp. shills who plague message boards and defend their corporate masters... simple.
2.) Define "going head-to-head with their partners." This statement is meaningless without elaboration and context. Who is the "they" whose "partners" you reference? Who are the partners? What actions constitute "going head-to-head? And what is the objective of such?
3.) Who is "so disconnected with their customer base" that you "applaud any decision to challenge" them? It sounds like you are talking about Apple Corp itself here, but you were just DEFENDING them in the previous sentences. Please explain this seeming contradiction.
"Cheering Apple on" in this situation effectively means that you also condone such action by any and all other companies, basically condoning conduct that likely amounts to violations of the RICO Act and anti-trust statutes. I imagine you'd have a very different
attitude if you were the proud new owner of a $600 paperweight.
Please elaborate and explain your position.
It is possible that given the legal status of unlocking a phone under the DMCA, doing so should not void Apple's warranty and they can be held liable for refusing to honor said warranty.
A more interesting issue in my mind is whether the 1.1.1 update was intentionally engineered to damage and/or render inoperable any iPhone that had been unlocked. If so, and it can be proven, then such conduct would amount to destruction of property.
Is it possible to determine the contents of the software update to analyze whether it was designed to damage unlocked phones?
I think what Apple just did is actually the opposite of what you just said. With the latest update, they aren't going against their partners, but actually with them. .While I agree with the basis of your argument, as opposed to M$ and Sony, Apple continues, from my perspective, to walk a tightrope.
Granted, Apple must take steps to live up to their end of the contract. However, they continue to not support 'features' such as HDCP in their monitors or video cards, even though their 'partners' would like to close that loop. When it comes to FairPlay, we are still able to use 12 month old cracks to strip DRM from iTunes products.
All I'm saying is, they don't appear to be devoting much in the way of resources to 'protect' their partner's outdated business models... or at least not as much as Microsoft and Sony.
Galvatron
09-28-2007, 03:20 PM
Even M$ isn't crazy enough to pull a stunt like this
darkjedi
09-28-2007, 03:40 PM
Even M$ isn't crazy enough to pull a stunt like this
Noooo Microsoft has never been sued for poor business practices or strong-arming computer companies...nothing has been in the news lately about Microsoft and the European Union. Nope, there goes Microsoft, clean as a whistle.
kinjutsu11
09-28-2007, 04:22 PM
Noooo Microsoft has never been sued for poor business practices or strong-arming computer companies...nothing has been in the news lately about Microsoft and the European Union. Nope, there goes Microsoft, clean as a whistle.
And that's part of the problem, as the spotlight gets brighter on Apple, of course more will be nitpicked when it comes to what they do, their agreements, and the like. Microsoft had the same issues when they where in their golden age, albeit they actually had problems, like monopolization, etc. Either way, we've yet to give Apple some time to see how they address this issue, and i hope they do it much like they addressed the iPhone pricing issue. Positively, not monetary, in this case though.
Galvatron
09-28-2007, 04:43 PM
im not saying they have a clean whistl they have had ther share of legal hot water but that dosn't mean you should pup crapple and el jobso on a pdestal
darkjedi
09-28-2007, 05:58 PM
im not saying they have a clean whistl they have had ther share of legal hot water but that dosn't mean you should pup crapple and el jobso on a pdestal
Once again I'm not putting them on any ivory tower, I'm merely placing them well within the realm of good business practice. Whether or not its agreeable to the loud albeit super small minority of those who actually have hacked their phone is irrelevant. Apple continues wild success with the iphone because 98% of the people purchasing them will never care about navizon or summerboard or apptapp or anything else hacker related.
Legally Apple hasn't done anything wrong. They have only protected their product model and have done so in a way that while it angers some, affects only a small few. Lawyers all over the place are popping up stating that Apple is within their rights to void warranties etc.
I mean blackberry voids the warranty if install non T-mobile software on a T-mobile phone. I used to do that all the time and I would get penalized for doing so, but I wanted more stable software on my blackberry and I was willing to take the risk and lose the safety net of the warranty to enjoy my product more. Those who bought the phones and shipped them, unlocked or whatever should have considered the idea that these phones would be unsupported regardless.
You use the phone at your own risk, you purchase the phone at your own risk and thats that. The amount of backlash happening against Apple right now isn't because Apple did anything wrong, it's because people who purchased their phones don't recognize the difference between right and wrong. Just because you believe that Apple did something outside the realm of the consumers interests doesn't mean its the case nor does it mean its illegal, impractical, immoral or whatever word you want me to pull from my vocabulary.
The difference here is that the bloggers are leading the charge when they don't really understand the ramifications itself. They are pulling in opinions from people who are self proclaimed experts on nothing.
The only people who seem to matter now are the lawyers who are the only ones left to defend the argument from those who feel Apple acted against the interests of the consumer. The thing is, the lawyers aren't standing up for little guy because the little guy took the risk, assumed the risk and is now left holding the stick. While it may be unfortunate, that doesn't make it wrong.
Galvatron
09-28-2007, 06:21 PM
no those who buy apple prducts mainly I junk are materialists who don't think twice
fankly itunes is a bed business practice in it self allying itself with record lables
no if they reall did the fair business parctice the would alow 3rd party hardware as they promised yet the lates updat says otherwise heck even better ifif you sold the phone unlocked and enabled all the fetures yod have somting> also ths need for a BS contract with att or any other carrier is crap i don's seee RIM or moterola or palm demanding contracts to say hay giv me 40 percent of your revenue.
at most rim sells the BES an BIS service in the side but they mailnly sell hard ware they do not do the interoperablity thing RIM dose HTC dose
thes verizonish tactics only dtract more customers. the phone would have works just as well withouth the itunes crap if not better. what tey hould have done is throw evwerythng abot the ipod out the window. years back they did not even need to advertise with tv comercials word of mouth works but now alls the sudden they do? you do the math.
greenblood
09-28-2007, 07:15 PM
I am always proud because I'm iFree
but does it matter?
everybody is drunk and I'm the only awake, that I become insane because I'm iFree
Galvatron
09-28-2007, 09:56 PM
being i free roxors
Ellen
09-29-2007, 03:03 PM
Since the update for the iPhone has come and gone, I will now close this thread.
Ellen
09-29-2007, 09:03 PM
I have reopened this thread at the request of one of the forums members.
Note: Please keep it friendly, and remember this thread is not about whether or not you like the iPhone. All irrelevant posts will be deleted... Thank you.
greenblood
09-29-2007, 10:42 PM
something good is caught from engadgetmobile
a2dp is found
iPhone 1.1.1 "bug" unleashes music over Bluetooth - Engadget Mobile (http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/09/29/iphone-1-1-1-bug-unleashes-music-over-bluetooth/)
kinjutsu11
10-01-2007, 01:52 PM
In addition, I don't recall any reports indicating that the 1.1.1 update does, in fact, relock customers' iPhones. What it does is render them almost completely inoperable. They are still unlocked, but they no longer function properly, except to dial 911, I believe. So, your suggested "topic at hand" is misleading.
Just remember what Ellen said everyone, play nice. And the discussions will keep going, especially when the hackers are still hard at work decrypting the new firmware, and have been able to downgrade 1.1.1 iPhones to 1.0.2, so this thread will remain open until things die down, or get out of hand.
iPhones are not only inoperable, but also relocked. There has been a downgrade option available through the hackint0sh forums, and the phones are still locked when back on 1.0.2, but 3rd party apps are a "go" again.
What the 1.1.1 update did was give a special IMEI to iphones unlocked by 3rd party apps so Geniuses at the stores don't work on them, or warranty them. They also relock and prevent 3rd party apps from being used.
homobile
10-01-2007, 02:54 PM
I read that Apple plans to bid on the 700 frequency auction.I know their contract is only through 2009 with ATT.Does anybody else think Apple is going to try to be a provider.
kinjutsu11
10-01-2007, 03:01 PM
Going the route of an MVNO is troublesome, EPSN Mobile, AMP'd, and Disney mobile have all shut down. Apple isn't likely to do that, but you never know with them. Still too early to tell, but as we get closer to January we'll find out.
homobile
10-01-2007, 03:46 PM
By the way,this is where I found the info
HowardChui.com: Batteries included » Apple to Bid on Wireless Spectrum (http://www.howardchui.com/2007/09/16/apple-to-bid-on-wireless-spectrum/)
1.) Who wants to go there? I feel fairly secure in saying that ANYONE with a BRICKED phone would most definitely want to "go there," and apparently that's quite a few people. In addition, anyone who wants to defend consumer rights protected by federal legislation and the U.S. Constitution would certainly want to "go there."
Well, I'm a proud owner of an unlocked iPhone and I sure haven't gone there. Let's keep in mind that Steve Jobs hopped on stage months before launch and shot down 3rd party native applications. So at the very least, the product that Apple has advertised remains what it is today... at least from Apple's perspective.
As for an unlocking solution, Apple has signed an exclusive contract with at&t... and this is standard practice in wireless.
Moving to the US Constitution: While Locke's theme of Life, Liberty and Property is strewn throughout this great document that we have largely abandoned, your argument seems to be a giant leap, especially considering the vast amount of documentation Apple has provided including: 1) Official Apple statements 2) Receipt/Contract 3) iTunes at time of activation 4) Press Releases.
I think that a better question is who DOESN'T want to "go there?" The answer: Corporate apologists and Apple Corp. shills who plague message boards and defend their corporate masters... simple.
I am certainly not a "Corporate apologist" or "Apple Corp. shill." I do think the answers are probably much simpler than we wish to recognize. Take the recent decision by NBC to walk away from iTunes instead of submitting to the evil corporation's desire to reduce the price per show. Negotiating with content providers is no easy task, and I think they have serious concerns with Apple becoming vertically integrated and cutting them out all together.
From the iPhone perspective, taking into account the exclusive contract, if Apple did not take some action against the unlock, would they have a leg to stand on if at&t came knocking at their door? While we all know what the iPhone is capable of, Apple still lives in a world of laws... which is, of course, not the one us tech freaks drool over.
2.) Define "going head-to-head with their partners." This statement is meaningless without elaboration and context. Who is the "they" whose "partners" you reference? Who are the partners? What actions constitute "going head-to-head? And what is the objective of such?
Let's take Microsoft, for example. When it comes to content distribution, why do their products seem to lead the way? Well, they cozy up with their partners, and are actually in the business of making money on BOTH sides of the transaction: 1) By developing DRM platforms and selling these tools to their partners 2) Selling DRM protected content to their consumers. Apple, OTOH, refuses to license FairPlay to anyone.
Going back in history, when iTunes was first launched, we had to illegally download 30 copies of the same track to find one of quality or purchase the entire CD and rip it. So, for people like me, iTunes provided value... and actually saved me time and money. Unfortunately, in order to secure this content to provide this value, they have to give into the record labels demands for DRM.
Now, regardless of their intentions, Apple continues to poke the content distributors in the eyes... on one end publicly bashing DRM, and on the other directly competing with them (i.e., giving artists the opportunity to ditch several middlemen). If that isn't going head-to-head, I don't know what is.
Taking it to the iPhone, if you understood the economics of the wireless business, you may not be so quick to make this statement. See, when Apple dropped the iPhone to $299, they set up ALL (including at&t) wireless carriers to experience a very expensive acquisition/retention quarter. Where they would have been breaking even at the mid-tier price-point and enjoying margin at the high-tier, they now have to get even more aggressive to counter the iPhone craze. All told, it will be a very expensive Q4 to match Apple's play.
As for at&t, they aren't exactly pushing the iPhone. Compared to their other products, it isn't as margin rich, and they certainly have a strong desire to develop a balanced portfolio... for good reason .
Let's fast-forward a few years to a time when at&t doesn't have an exclusive agreement... Today, Apple is developing an almost exclusive relationships with every Apple/at&t customer that is acquired. So, when Apple has the freedom to walk away, will these customers choose to stay with at&t? And if Apple actually does bid on spectrum (I doubt it), either going it alone or via partnership, where will all of these iPhone customers end up?
IMO, regardless of what happens, the at&t and Apple partnership is riskier for at&t than Apple. True, in the short-term, at&t will recognize incremental revenue. However, in the long-term, there is a good chance they'll be going head-to-head on many fronts (think quad-play).
3.) Who is "so disconnected with their customer base" that you "applaud any decision to challenge" them? It sounds like you are talking about Apple Corp itself here, but you were just DEFENDING them in the previous sentences. Please explain this seeming contradiction.
I was referencing the wireless carriers. Can we at least agree that they don't have a clue? I've worked in the industry in a variety of positions for the last decade... and boy, is it sad.
"Cheering Apple on" in this situation effectively means that you also condone such action by any and all other companies, basically condoning conduct that likely amounts to violations of the RICO Act and anti-trust statutes. I imagine you'd have a very different
attitude if you were the proud new owner of a $600 paperweight.
I'm not cheering for Apple... at least not in the way it is being taken. I do applaud them for pushing the ball forward a few yards (from music to wireless). And I do applaud their latest action... not because they locked us out for a few days, but because, regardless of Apple's intentions, they are helping to tear down artificial barriers in the wireless space.
And seriously, don't you think Apple made it a little too easy? I'm not trying to say anything... I'm just saying. :)
Also, from what I've been able to gather, those that used the needle method (software/hardware hack) were the ones having the greatest challenge with the latest update. Do I feel sorry for us? Not really... and I thank Apple for the challenge. The more they push, the harder the community will push back... in all sorts of ways.
End the end, I think we all win in this cat-and-mouse game.
Going the route of an MVNO is troublesome, EPSN Mobile, AMP'd, and Disney mobile have all shut down. Apple isn't likely to do that, but you never know with them. Still too early to tell, but as we get closer to January we'll find out.I think the carriers would have been smart to force Apple to take the MVNO route... right now, they're getting the milk for free.
Why bother with the trouble of a MVNO? The better bet is to stick with what you do best.
darkjedi
10-01-2007, 10:33 PM
Ok....well I for one have no problem with this thread remaining open and this topic being discussed.
As someone who plays close attention to the legal world around him I can tell you that "going there" isn't going to happen. This is a ridiculous and baseless argument spewed out by people who think they have a good grasp on the situation because they feel strongly about it. Emotions put forth by people who have found themselves with a $600 paperweight as its been so eloquently called are just going to have to do with the reality of the situation, whether or not they agree with it is irrelevant.
I'm so sick and tired of reading and hearing about this in so many popular blogs and even the mainstream news that its turning me off from 90% of the websites I read on a daily basis. I have yet to see one good and I mean a really good argument that has shown me that Apple is completely in the wrong. Just because engadget, gizmodo and other major blogs don't agree with the decision doesn't mean its wrong, illegal, unethical, immoral or any other fun adjective. It's just throwing fuel on the fire and people who are upset with Apple are jumping on this bandwagon and allowing it grow. The reality is they number in the hundreds, MAYBE in the thousands, and the amount of exaggeration being tossed around about the number of people being affected by this is just crazy.
Apple hasn't done anything legally wrong and thats the real truth. Anyone who graduated law school, anyone who took a business law class in their freshman year of college knows that Apple is in within their rights here. If any decision is made to alter this path it will not be for reasons of legality but for customer service.
What bothers me most is that people bought by this phone without any preconceived notion that it could be hacked initially. So those early adopters who are now crying foul are just crazy. They bought the phone because it was a product that seemed to achieve new heights in the wireless world. Anyone who bought this phone for the specific purpose of hacking deserves what has come to them. Purchasing a product with malicious intent is just poor consumerism. The amount of metaphors that could be tossed in here are to plentiful to type out yet Apple is being dragged to the dog house for protecting their business model which is completely within their rights. Why this is being ignored because of a small minority is quite puzzling. There is a poll on macrumors and it asks if knowing what you know now would you still purchase the phone. Those saying yes more than quadruple those who would say no. Mind you this is being posted on a forum that is spearheading this "effort" to take Apple to task.
On a mod note, I know I'm an ardent supporter of continuing this topic, please just keep it friendly and impersonal. Speak your mind but be mindful of who might read it.
jgebis
10-02-2007, 03:43 PM
Apple hasn't done anything legally wrong and thats the real truth. Anyone who graduated law school, anyone who took a business law class in their freshman year of college knows that Apple is in within their rights here. If any decision is made to alter this path it will not be for reasons of legality but for customer service.
That's true, but I get the feeling that people have higher expectations of Apple. People don't just want them to be another company tries to make money; people want Apple to be the company that is out there fighting for the consumer: fighting to give people something that just works, fighting to give people another choice, fighting to give people a product that is functional and cool.
Apple has been very smart in the past. I think they'll eventually pick up on the fact that people buy Apple products because of how Apple is seen. I'm not sure what Apple will do to reinforce/justify the view that many people have, but I'm sure they will have to make a choice: do something, or start to become just another tech company.
Apple hasn't done anything legally wrong and thats the real truth. Anyone who graduated law school, anyone who took a business law class in their freshman year of college knows that Apple is in within their rights here.
No sir. The REAL truth is that until someone decodes the 1.1.1 update software and determines with scientific certainty whether or not it was intentionally designed to damage customers' phones, any assertions about the legality of Apple's conduct is pure conjecture.
In fact, if litigation (and the inevitable discovery process) never happens, as some think will be the case, we may never know. In that case, Apple may have effectively gotten away with iMurder.
If someone intentionally damages or destroys your property, you have a right to relief under the law. The possible future existence and potential outcome of any legal action against Apple is speculative, so any adamant claims of the legality of their conduct in this matter is suspect, at best.
Unless you have personally reverse engineered or decoded the software update and analyzed it line by line to find out exactly what it does during the update process, then you don't know whether the damage done to unlocked iPhones was accomplished intentionally or was an innocent side effect.
This is the crux of the matter.
In fact, if litigation (and the inevitable discovery process) never happens, as some think will be the case, we may never know. In that case, Apple may have effectively gotten away with iMurder.Wow... So, if you were to go against traffic on a one-way street and slammed into a Mack truck, would you sue the city for your untimely death? I mean, they did warn you, didn't they? In fact, there were signs, posted warnings, flashing lights, and lets not forget the police officer that was desperately trying to wave you off......
Putting aside the fact that anyone finding themselves with an iBrick had to have modified their device to function in a way that it was expressly advertised not to....... Why would they upgrade to the next version of firmware after they were warned by Apple not to? And why should anyone feel sorry for them if they ignored these warnings?
darkjedi
10-02-2007, 10:15 PM
Wow... So, if you were to go against traffic on a one-way street and slammed into a Mack truck, would you sue the city for your untimely death? I mean, they did warn you, didn't they? In fact, there were signs, posted warnings, flashing lights, and lets not forget the police officer that was desperately trying to wave you off......
Putting aside the fact that anyone finding themselves with an iBrick had to have modified their device to function in a way that it was expressly advertised not to....... Why would they upgrade to the next version of firmware after they were warned by Apple not to? And why should anyone feel sorry for them if they ignored these warnings?
Well that pretty much expresses what I was going to write having read the response to my post. I really can't add much other than to say that j_1 is absolutely correct, Apple warned via public statement and written advertisement that they would possibly render phones inoperable that had been altered against their design. Apple cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who mis-used the device.
j_1...well put.
The crux of the matter boils down to the rampant complaining put forth by those who foolish enough to attempt this update prior to it being tested and their arrogance in believing that Apple has purposely and intentionally ruined the device. There is little hope for them to prove that somewhere in a room Jobs and company decided to purposely make a software update with the intention of rendering inoperable previously sold devices. Many of the small but loud minority bought this phone with the sole intention of hacking the device and at the end, that was a foolish purchase.
jgebis
10-02-2007, 10:37 PM
Something I don't understand: why don't companies make their products un-brickable? I mean, they could have a basic firmware on some read-only hardware chip, and some method to reload that firmware that doesn't depend on a working firmware (say, closing a jumper in the battery compartment and then booting the device). Most people wouldn't ever need it, but it would only add a tiny amount to the cost of the device, and they wouldn't have to have the problems of dealing with people turning their devices into bricks.
As time goes on and more people start replacing firmwares (phones, cameras, disk drives, game systems, etc), more products will start to be bricked. I would think that have an end-user solution would be something they want.
In this case, people would still complain: their phone wouldn't be dead (or it would be unbrickable), but it wouldn't be unlocked, which is what they really want. But, it would avoid the problem of people getting upset at their $600 device suddenly becoming worthless.
darkjedi
10-03-2007, 12:18 AM
Apple's Not 'Bricking' Hacked IPhones for Revenge (http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2007/10/cultofmac_1003)
Finally a blogger who uses his brain rather than his emotions.
Apple's Not 'Bricking' Hacked IPhones for Revenge (http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2007/10/cultofmac_1003)
Finally a blogger who uses his brain rather than his emotions.That was a good read... Thanks for sharing, darkjedi.
Apple's Not 'Bricking' Hacked IPhones for Revenge (http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2007/10/cultofmac_1003)
Finally a blogger who uses his brain rather than his emotions.
Leander Kahney? Author of over 150 lengthy and admiring love letter entries in his "Cult of Macintosh" Wired blog and publicly devoted Apple disciple?
Yeah, he's a CREDIBLE source of contrary information, I'm sure.
Simply put, that article proves absolutely nothing.
It's a blogger citing second and third-hand reports from people who speculate as to Apple's intentions!
It's a textbook example of what's known in the legal profession as "inadmissible hearsay evidence," which is really a misnomer itself since "hearsay evidence" isn't really evidence at all since it's inadmissible and only stuff that's formally admitted by the judge is truly considered "evidence." Get it?
As previously stated, the "real truth" of the matter may never be known unless litigation over this update actually happens. ONLY after a neutral expert witness has "looked under the hood" of the 1.1.1 update will the world know whether or not it was designed to damage phones. Any conclusions you, Leander Kahney or any other Apple shills make to the contrary are pure conjecture, i.e., unproven, speculative, and unfounded opinions.
Maybe it would serve you better to start using you own brain and look at the situation in an objective (i.e., unbiased) and analytical (i.e., critical) manner rather than relying on the paid opinions of obviously interested parties.
It's never too late to start thinking for yourselves!
Leander Kahney? Author of over 150 lengthy and admiring love letter entries in his "Cult of Macintosh" Wired blog and publicly devoted Apple disciple?
Yeah, he's a CREDIBLE source of contrary information, I'm sure.
Simply put, that article proves absolutely nothing.
It's a blogger citing second and third-hand reports from people who speculate as to Apple's intentions!
It's a textbook example of what's known in the legal profession as "inadmissible hearsay evidence," which is really a misnomer itself since "hearsay evidence" isn't really evidence at all since it's inadmissible and only stuff that's formally admitted by the judge is truly considered "evidence." Get it?
As previously stated, the "real truth" of the matter may never be known unless litigation over this update actually happens. ONLY after a neutral expert witness has "looked under the hood" of the 1.1.1 update will the world know whether or not it was designed to damage phones. Any conclusions you, Leander Kahney or any other Apple shills make to the contrary are pure conjecture, i.e., unproven, speculative, and unfounded opinions.
Maybe it would serve you better to start using you own brain and look at the situation in an objective (i.e., unbiased) and analytical (i.e., critical) manner rather than relying on the paid opinions of obviously interested parties.
It's never too late to start thinking for yourselves!
You're hilarious... and I'm flattered, I guess. Thanks for the laugh. :)
kinjutsu11
10-04-2007, 08:11 AM
With some news i've read just recently, it may make sense as to why apple decided to lockdown the new firmware.
IPhone: iPhone Getting Offline Safari Storage but No 3rd-Party Native Development Planned - Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/iphone/iphone-getting-offline-safari-storage-but-no-3rd+party-native-development-planned-306823.php)
Which would be pretty cool, but if you read the next link, this would make more sense as to why the lockdown happened.
More Legit 3rd Party iPhone Applications on the Way? | 9 to 5 Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/apple-adopts-sidekick-application-distribution-model-234545623)
And before anyone says that these are Apple Fanboy websites, and that they aren't credible and so on; I'm merely posting these links to show what Apple might have on their plate with future iPhone development. And usually these Apple Fanboy websites (9to5 Mac, in particular) usually have good sources and intel on whats coming. If what they wrote is true, and iPhone is going a route that the Sidekick OS development went, it would make sense for Apple to lock it down.
Especially considering their stance on pirating.
This might solve our problems.... (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/05/liveblogging-the-big-iphone-1-1-1-hack/5#comments)
Ellen
10-06-2007, 12:01 AM
This might solve our problems.... (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/05/liveblogging-the-big-iphone-1-1-1-hack/5#comments)
Post number 89 in this site mentions T-MobileSignal as a good technical site for iPhone info.
Hopefully someone can get a long term unlocking solution going. I'd prefer to get an iphone than what i use now.
greenblood
10-08-2007, 10:30 PM
1.1.1 is jailbroken now
the hackers are blazing quick!
Post number 89 in this site mentions T-MobileSignal as a good technical site for iPhone info.Huh, imagine that... :D
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.